Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tarsiger rufilatus - Doi Inthanon.jpg

File:Tarsiger rufilatus - Doi Inthanon.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2011 at 01:33:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by JJ Harrison -- JJ Harrison (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JJ Harrison (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. It's a shame the left leg is out of focus, the DOF seems just a touch too narrow. The dead-center bird and slightly square framing is a little off-putting for me, but John Singer Sargent was criticized for his very square portraits too, sometimes : ) Nice mossy bough, too. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 02:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 06:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very, very nice (including a nice license). --Slaunger (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colors. If author happens to read me, is it a crop ? doesn't seem as sharp as the other pics despite the size (I'm thinking about Cephas). I'm also surprised it's still this sharp at 1/30sec, but I guess the (huge) lens rests on something. - Benh (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a crop, and getting sharp images at 1/30 with such focal lengths is a challenge even with support, so there probably is some motion blur in there. Even if the tripod was perfect the bird is still moving around. The Cephas pictures are taken in the sun at 1/400, which is a different ballgame to a dark jungle. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I was aware I must have been quite dark (f/4, ISO 400, 1/30) and that Cephas' pics are under better lighting. I was just a bit surprised a high end 500mm couldn't do better than a far cheaper 400mm f/5.6. Thanks for the explanations. Benh (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, it was a situation where lens sharpness wasn't really a limiting factor. On a few occasions it was even worse than this (like 1/10 F4 ISO 1600). If I did it again I'd have taken some flashes and wireless triggers for these situations (this was taken from a portable blind). JJ Harrison (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sounds stupid, but I had to search for what a portable blind is (in case someone speaks english as "well" as I do). Must be a lot for you to carry by the way. - Benh (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You are not alone. I did not know either. --Slaunger (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not certain, but my guess is Cephas uses blinds to some degree too. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I'm thinking to buy one some days. --Cephas (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice! Cephas (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ☭Acodered (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral so-so quality because of difficult light conditions... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (f/4, ISO 400, 1/30) !! W.S. 10:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Oh, a bird in FPC ! At least, something new !!--Jebulon (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Background is not perfect, but Support. Welcome new species to FP :) Przykuta → [edit] 15:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful--Miguel Bugallo 19:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds